Skip to content

Month: February 2018

Into whose pockets? by @BloggersRUs

Into whose pockets?
by Tom Sullivan

Chris Hayes delivered a masterful essay last night on All In on the bad faith (or lack of any) behind Republicans’ supposed philosophy on the economy.

I’ve argued for years that our differences are not over the size of government spending but over into whose pockets that spending goes. That the GOP was hammering out a budget deal as Hayes delivered his essay made it all the more powerful. It was worth transcribing for posterity:

Allow me to whisk you back in time to the year 2009. You may remember it. It was the worst financial crisis in 70 years, unemployment careening towards 11 percent, up to 800,000 jobs a month being lost, and a consensus among economists we desperately need to inject stimulus into the economy.

The White House proposed a package which totalled $787 billion dollars in tax cuts and federal spending. By the time President Obama signed it into law a month after his inauguration, the Republicans who had just spent the duration of the Bush years exploding the deficits through Bush tax cuts, war spending, and Medicare Part D, suddenly [snaps fingers], on a dime, got deficit religion. That stimulus bill that President Obama was pushing got a grand total of three Republican votes in the Senate and zero, not one, zero in the House.

Then two years later, Republicans threatened en masse to really, quite literally, destroy the American economy and the global economy by threatening to refuse to raise the debt ceiling, sending the U.S. into default. They held the global economy and the American economy hostage in exchange for the Budget Control Act, an unbelievably severe austerity measure that effectively resulted in $1.2 trillion dollars in cuts over the next 10 years.

The effect of that was to slow down the recovery and to prolong the misery of millions of Americans needlessly.

Now, back then Republicans went on and on and on about the debts and the deficits and our children and our grandchildren. They would get weepy at the very thought of all the debt the grandchildren would have.

We would be here for a month straight if we played all the tape, but this was the general idea of the refrain:

Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio): A budget which spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much from our kids and our grandkids.

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin): Now, you’re going to hear three words or three phrases: spends too much, borrows too much, taxes too much.

Their hostage-taking resulted in the first-ever downgrade of the U.S. credit rating. And that was still when the economy was very much in recovery mode.

Fast forward six years. The economy is approaching something that looks like full employment, thankfully. Republicans are now in power. And guess what? They are doing their own recovery act. I know that sounds crazy, but they really are.

It’s, of course, one that mostly benefits large corporations, wealthy people, and defense contractors. But it’s a stimulus nonetheless.

And get this. The Trump stimulus will cost more than the Recovery Act Republicans fought against so forcefully when Barack Obama was President.

I’m not making this up.

Their recovery act, comprised of the tax cut package they already passed and the two-year budget deal they hammered out that they’re trying to pass now, has given hundreds of billions of dollars to the wealthy and corporations, and will explode the deficit. And will likely total more in cumulative tax cuts and spending and borrowing than Obama’s stimulus package, even though the Obama stimulus package came at the worst moment in America since the Great Depression, and this one arrives at a moment of near full employment.

So, after eight years of sob stories about the debt and the deficit and our children and our grandchildren, and the Tea Party and the tricorner hats and the rallies, and how we lost our way during George W. Bush, and we need to stop spending and all that, it was all, all of it, nonsense. A lie from start to finish. All in bad faith — a gaggle of Freedom Caucus members and Rand Paul sort of notwithstanding.

I say “sort of” because they all just voted to increase the deficit by over a trillion dollars in tax cuts. But, the most important thing to understand after all of this, the most important thing to understand about American politics, is that it’s not a debate over the size of government, but a debate about who controls it and whom it works for.

Which is why we now have the Donald Trump recovery act in which the Republican Party inject $800 billion dollars of stimulus over two years into an already full economy, because this time around they control the purse strings and they can directed that money where they want it to go.

File that away. Thanksgiving will be here again before you know it.

* * * * * * * *

Request a copy of For The Win, my county-level election mechanics primer, at tom.bluecentury at gmail.

Build That Wall! (And make Russia pay for it)

Build That Wall! (And make Russia pay for it)
by digby

I think it’s time to declare Nunes officially cray-cray. It sounds like even his fellow Republicans are coming to that conclusion:

In a sign of increasing partisan hostilities, Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee plan to construct a wall – a physical partition – separating Republican and Democratic staff members in the committee’s secure spaces, according to multiple committee sources. It’s expected to happen this spring.

For now, some Republican committee members deny knowing anything about it, while strongly suggesting the division is the brainchild of the committee’s chairman, Devin Nunes, R-California.

“I’m not part of that decision,” said Rep. Mike Conaway, R-Texas. “You’ve got to talk to Devin. I don’t know what they’re trying to do one way or the other.”

“I swear to God I didn’t know that,” said Rep. Tom Rooney, R-Florida, when asked about the plan. While acknowledging a wall might not be constructive for the committee’s work, he said, “The level of trust and the level of everything down there is – it’s poison. It’s absolute poison down there.”

Rooney said one reason for the tension is an erosion of trust, exacerbated by an ongoing ethics investigation into the “entire Republican staff,” including “the woman up front that answers the phone” for alleged leaks. He later added that the matter was being handled by the Office of Congressional Ethics.

Bipartisanship, he said, “is gone. It’s gone from that committee.”

The OCE reviews allegations of misconduct against House members and staff and, when appropriate, refers matters to the House Committee on Ethics. It is not clear what — if any — evidence has been submitted in this matter, or whether an investigation has been opened by OCE, which as a practice does not confirm or deny the existence of an investigation. The OCE declined to comment.

A spokesman for the panel’s majority offered no comment on either issue – plans for the wall or on the existence of an ethics investigation.

Trump is supposedly very upset about his aide abusing women. Right.

Trump is supposedly very upset about his aide abusing women. Right.by digby

He’s “fucking pissed” — for all the wrong reasons:

On Wednesday night, Donald Trump vented to advisers that Kelly had not fully briefed him on Porter’s issues with women until recently, two sources told me. Trump was also not aware of the severity of the alleged abuse until yesterday, when Ivanka walked into the Oval Office and showed her father a photo published in the Daily Mail of Porter’s ex-wife with a black eye. “He was fucking pissed,” said one Republican briefed on the conversation. According to a source, Ivanka and Jared Kushner have been discussing possible chief-of-staff replacements. The problem is there’s not an obvious candidate waiting in the wings.

West Wing staffers continue to wonder why Kelly would keep the Porter allegations from the president, and why he defended Porter so aggressively when presented with allegations by the Mail. Porter’s history with women had been known to Kelly for months, a source familiar with the matter said.

Why? Because he liked him and didn’t give a damn that he’s a psycho in his personal life and doesn’t think someone like him can’t be trusted with a top security clearance because nobody cares about some psycho who beats women. Why else?

I believe that Trump was pissed at Kelly but not because of this, He’s been looking for a reason to fire him for a while because he always has to have someone to blame for his own failings and Kelly is next in line.

This really is interesting though:

The crisis also raises questions about Hope Hicks’s decision-making, and whether her romantic relationship with Porter clouded her judgment. According to a source, Hicks did not get a sign off from Trump for the White House’s initial statement defending Porter, in which Kelly was quoted calling Porter a “man of true integrity.” She drafted the statement with her close friend, Kushner’s White House spokesman Josh Raffel, whom she’s known since their days working for Manhattan P.R. strategist Matthew Hiltzik. This morning, Hicks continued to defend Porter in private, a source said, telling people she thinks the allegations aren’t true. In recent weeks, Trump has been angry at Hicks for her role in approving interviews with Michael Wolff, a Republican close to the White House told me.

She is a huge danger to Trump in the Russia investigation. Trump should be handling her with kid gloves. But of course he isn’t. His instincts tell him to destroy anyone who can hurt him. Being the stable genius that he is, he could be making a big mistake with her.

And, by the way:

Trump was furious that a “scalp reduction” operation he’d undergone to eliminate a bald spot had been unexpectedly painful. Ivana had recommended the plastic surgeon. In retaliation, Hurt wrote, Trump yanked out a handful of his wife’s hair, and then forced himself on her sexually. Afterward, according to the book, she spent the night locked in a bedroom, crying; in the morning, Trump asked her, “with menacing casualness, ‘Does it hurt?’ ”

That is the explanation for this:

.

America’s problem is too many black athletes? So says Fox News

America’s problem is too many black athletes? So says Fox Newsby digby

Via Media Matters

Fox News’ John Moody, who serves as the network’s executive vice president and an executive editor, criticized the diversity of Team USA in an op-ed a day before the 2018 Winter Olympics were scheduled to open in PyeongChang, South Korea.

Moody decried the strides Team USA has made toward diversity of its athletes in a February 7 op-ed published on FoxNews.com. Though this is Team USA’s most diverse delegation of athletes ever, as The Washington Post reported, the U.S. Olympic Committee still has a lot of progress to make: Out of 243 athletes, two men are openly gay, “10 are African American — 4 percent — and another 10 are Asian American. The rest, by and large, are white.” Moody suggested without basis that the focus on diversity may cost Team USA medals, and speculated that athletes were given spots on the team that they didn’t earn during their trials, because of their race. From Moody’s op-ed:

Unless it’s changed overnight, the motto of the Olympics, since 1894, has been “Faster, Higher, Stronger.” It appears the U.S. Olympic Committee would like to change that to “Darker, Gayer, Different.” If your goal is to win medals, that won’t work.

A USOC official was quoted this week expressing pride (what else?) about taking the most diverse U.S. squad ever to the Winter Olympics. That was followed by a, frankly, embarrassing laundry list of how many African-Americans, Asians and openly gay athletes are on this year’s U.S. team. No sport that we are aware of awards points – or medals – for skin color or sexual orientation.

For the current USOC, a dream team should look more like the general population. So, while uncomfortable, the question probably needs to be asked: were our Olympians selected because they’re the best at what they do, or because they’re the best publicity for our current obsession with having one each from Column A, B and C?

It sounds like he thinks we need a quota system requiring the team to be representative of the racial make-up of the country. Because there is no evidence whatsoever that any of the athletes going to the Olympics won their places on the basis of anything but ability.

It looks like maybe white people need a little affirmative action, amirite?

I thought we’d settled this once and for all a long time ago but apparently not:

We have been through this crapola already. These people are historical imbeciles.

.

Meanwhile in Bizarroworld

Meanwhile in Bizarroworldby digby
In case you were wondering what the right wing media are obsessing about today

And this too:

I don’t know who this alleged informant is but I think he’s the one who’s repped by professional right wing character assassin Victoria Toensing.

Just keep in mind as you watch these Republicans shriek about former British spy Christopher Steele’s information being completely unreliable because it was paid for by some Democrats that this “Uranium One” non-scandal comes from a book that was published under the auspices of Steve Bannon and the Mercers that has been completely debunked.

But whatevs…

.

Reality show reality

Reality show realityby digby

I’m just going to leave this bit from Omarosa on Big Brother here for you to watch and digest.

Well ok then…

.

Did Donald Trump ever watch a State of the Union address before?

Did Donald Trump ever watch a State of the Union address before?by digby

You may have thought Dear Leader was just speaking off the cuff when he called Democrats un-American and treasonous and said they don’t love their country because they didn’t give him an ovation at this State of the Union address. Oh, that’s just him. He was joking. It’s just the way he talks, amirite?
Is this a joke too?

I won’t note the hypocrisy because we know they don’t acknowledge it. But I will mention this:

The people who made Trump’s ad know what happens at the State of the Union even if Trump is such an infantile ignoramus he thought that being president means everyone has to kiss your ring 24/7. Their cynical stroking of his ego is as un-American as it gets.

.

Nunes wants to call Chief Justice John Roberts to testify. I’m not kidding

Nunes wants to call Chief Justice John Roberts to testify. I’m not kiddingby digby

I wrote about the latest wingnut shenanigans for Salon today:
On Wednesday morning, the president had some very exciting “executive time.” Fox News broke a huge story that supposedly implicated Barack Obama in the Clinton email scandal. Sure, most of America sees the Clinton email scandal as having as much relevance to current politics as Teapot Dome. But to Donald Trump and the right-wing media, it’s an addiction they just can’t kick.

The Senate Committee on Homeland Security, led by Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., released a report on Wednesday featuring more of those juicy texts between FBI lovers Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. The report pointed to one text in particular from Sept. 2, 2016, in which Page (an FBI lawyer) tells Strzok (an agent) that “potus wants to know everything we’re doing.” Johnson implied this was evidence that President Obama had personally interfered in the Clinton email probe, thus supporting Trump’s assertion during the campaign that the whole thing had been “rigged.”

Fox went crazy, putting the “breaking news” on a loop and calling it a bombshell over and over again. On “Fox & Friends,” House Judiciary Committee member Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, decoded the text for viewers, saying it meant that Obama “wants to know what they’re doing to stop Trump.”

Trump himself excitedly helped get the word out to his tens of millions of Twitter followers:

Soon, all of right-wing media was screaming with the news that President Obama had his fingers in the Clinton email investigation. The Drudge Report, The Washington Times, Breitbart and Infowars all pounded away at the alleged bombshell.

Rush Limbaugh spelled it out clearly for those who weren’t getting it:

We now have more evidence via the text messages from Strzok and Lisa Page that this is all about Obama. That everything here is about protecting Obama, not just Hillary, in order to protect Obama. And I’m talking about the corruption that was the Obama presidency and specifically the corruption of the intelligence agencies and the FBI, well, the entire DOJ.

And I think one of the primary reasons they all wanted Hillary to win was to make sure we never knew any of what we now do know. That was the primary goal of having Hillary Clinton win, was to be able to continue to mask and cover up and hide what Obama and his administration had been doing.

This was huge. Not only was Hillary Clinton the one who was actually selling out the nation to the Russians, as House Intelligence Committee chair Devin Nunes, R-Calif., had claimed just two days earlier, Obama was in on the cover-up. Of course.

The conspiracy has widened to include the FBI, the Department of Justice, the State Department, the Clinton campaign and now Obama himself.

The only problem is that it isn’t true. Judd Legum at ThinkProgress noted that the text was sent months after the Clinton investigation was closed and long before it was reopened in late October. CNN and The Wall Street Journal later reported that sources confirmed the text in question was related to the investigation into Russian interference. In fact, that text came only a few days before Obama’s scheduled meeting with Vladimir Putin, when he famously told Putin to “cut it out.”

So why did every Republican immediately assume that one-line text obviously pertained to the email probe? According to CNN, despite the breathless announcement in Sen. Johnson’s report, he was basically just guessing:

In a footnote in his report, Johnson even seemed to concede that the idea the text message referred to the Clinton email investigation was only speculation. The report said the Justice Department said it redacted “text messages that were personal in nature or relating to other investigations.” Because this message was not redacted, Johnson’s report said, it could be presumed that the Justice Department “believes it may relate to the FBI’s investigation of classified information on Secretary Clinton’s private server.”

Somebody needs to take Johnson off the conspiracy beat. He’s the same senator who was all over TV a couple of weeks ago declaring that the texts revealed a “secret society” within the FBI that was meeting off-site to cook up its plot against Donald Trump. That one turned out to be a private joke between Strzok and Page.

Fox News continued to push this story, of course, even after it had been debunked by The Wall Street Journal, which is also published by Rupert Murdoch, their mutual owners. Sean Hannity led with it on Wednesday night:

They’re not even pretending to be a news organization anymore. The consensus as of Wednesday evening was that Johnson had officially become the looniest Trump loyalist in either house of Congress. Then Devin Nunes said, “Hold my beer.”

In an interview with right-wing activist Hugh Hewitt, Nunes said that he has weighed bringing Chief Justice John Roberts up to Capitol Hill to testify about his involvement in assigning judges to the FISA court and his understanding of the proper procedures. Nunes said:

This is something that we have, like I said, we have thought a lot about this. And the answer is, we don’t know the correct way to proceed because of the separation of powers issue. If, somehow, this case ends up at the Supreme Court, somehow, some way, by sending a letter to Roberts, do you conflict the Court?

You cannot make this stuff up. Indeed there is a constitutional “separation of powers issue” here, since the court is a co-equal branch of government that does not answer to Nunes and his cabal of House Republicans operating on behalf of their leader in the White House. Nunes admitted that he isn’t sure how his little scenario might work out:

I’m aware of members of Congress going to the Supreme Court and having coffee with the judges, just to shoot the bull. I’m aware of, you know, dinners where congressmen have been with Supreme Court justices. But I’m not aware of any time where a judge has, for lack of a better term, testified before the Congress.

Apparently a basic understanding of the Constitution, or even a grasp of simple logic, is no longer a requirement for powerful members of Congress. Sen. Johnson is throwing around conspiracy theories based on his willful misreading of innocuous text messages roughly once a week. Nunes thinks that because he chairs the House Intelligence Committee he has unlimited power to pursue anyone and everyone he chooses. Apparently, Justice Roberts may be next on that list. I think about how weird and unlikely all that is, and then I reflect that Donald Trump is president of the United States. This is the new normal.

.

No place like home by @BloggersRUs

No place like home
by Tom Sullivan

At the Heraklion airport on Crete I first noticed guards with submachine guns. It was 1977. Signs warned passengers not to take photos. (The airport is both civilian and military.)

A decade later, I debarked at a small airport in Mexico to see soldiers with automatic weapons standing watch on the tarmac. Soldiers with automatic rifles patrolled the beach. No, it didn’t make me feel safer, only uneasy. As in, “Toto, I’ve a feeling we’re not in Kansas anymore.”

Days after seeing those submachine guns on Crete, a customs officer at Kennedy International airport handed back my passport and offered a friendly, “Welcome home.”

Those other countries were exotic and interesting to visit, but no place like home.

Home meant no soldiers with automatic weapons patrolling the streets. That was those other places.

Home meant no military parades with goose-stepping soldiers and missiles. That was those other places.

American exceptionalism, if it has any meaning, means we do not need to show off for the cameras. An occasional flyover maybe at an air show, but not tanks and rocket launchers rolling down Pennsylvania Avenue.

Now President Donald Trump wants to turn my home into one of those other places. I don’t like it. Not one bit.

The loveless, insecure man in the Oval Office wants a military parade to show dictators his military is bigger. This post turtle wants to return the salutes of a thousand marching warriors so he can feel manly. Americans of true character and quiet strength need to see that as much as they need to see him display his engorged penis.

Paul Waldman writes for the Washington Post about the parade Trump hopes to officiate:

The parade will of course be presented as “honoring the troops,” as though we have a real problem these days with people not making a public show of praising the troops often enough. Along with that assertion will be the insistence — not even implied, but directly stated — that if you say it’s a stupid idea, then it means you hate the troops, and America to boot.

In reality, like everything Trump orders, this will be about him, not about the troops or America or anything else. He is the most self-focused president we’ve ever had. This is a man who regularly refers to “my generals and my military” and says things such as “I’ve created over a million jobs since I’m president,” who slaps his name on everything in sight, who is so childishly self-centered that his national security briefers make sure to mention him every few paragraphs in any document they give him, knowing that’s the only way he’ll read it.

And many Republicans can’t get enough of it. They cheer his attacks on any media outlet that doesn’t give him glowing coverage, they join in the assault he launches on whoever he decides is his enemy today, they pretend it’s no big deal when a hostile foreign power meddles in our elections so long as it helps Trump, they proclaim him the great and noble leader America has been thirsting for. They do all this for a man who possesses not a single identifiable human virtue.

A military parade is about the most un-Gary Cooper stunt Trump could ask for. Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) told reporters a parade to show off American military might is “kind of cheesy and a sign of weakness.”

Louisiana Republican Sen. Kennedy told reporters on Wednesday, “I think confidence is silent and insecurity is loud,” adding America has no need to show off its might.

Except Trump does. That he craves a military display to rival those in Moscow’s Red Square is a over-the-top obvious, even for him. And a national embarrassment.

The morning of September 11th, 2001, I was in a construction trailer in northern New Hampshire. I’d flown into Boston the day before. When I returned to Logan International to fly home 10 days later, it was the Airport of the Living Dead. All the terminals but one were dark. In the terminal with lights, the banks of flight monitors were almost all black. There seemed to be more guns than passengers. There was a SWAT team with submachine guns, National Guard troops with rifles, INS agents with sidearms. “Safer” is not the word to describe it.

But when I touched down in Atlanta, there was nothing. One MARTA cop in the arrivals area. It was an eerie contrast, but at least it felt normal.

Little has felt normal since Trump took office with a speech that left former president George W. Bush muttering, “That was some weird shit.” A year later, Trump is getting weirder and America feels even less like home. The people with the power to do something about it lack the integrity to.

* * * * * * * *

Request a copy of For The Win, my county-level election mechanics primer, at tom.bluecentury at gmail.

He’s like, smart. A genius. Of course he can testify.

He’s like, smart. A genius. Of course he can testify.by digby

Trump’s allies and his lawyers don’t want him to testify. But he knows he’s smarter than all of them:

President Donald Trump’s lawyers have aimed to hit the brakes on a potential sit-down with Robert Mueller, but Trump remains eager to speak with the special counsel, according to his allies.

One person familiar with Trump’s thinking said — in addition to believing he is entirely innocent — part of what’s fueling the President’s willingness to participate is his belief that he has experience with lawsuits and testifying under oath from his time in the real estate business.

“He thinks he can work this,” this person said. “He doesn’t realize how high the stakes are.”
Once you’re there, there’s no turning back, this person said. “You can’t get up and walk away. It’s not that easy.”

Not to worry. Trump’s got an uncle who worked at MIT. He’ll run circles around those dumb prosecutors.